The "Free Press" has a Narrative that Assumes Gays are being Denied a Right...

[del]

Where's the outrage? Why aren't they DEMANDING change from their Bishops and Cardinals?

Here in SoCal, Cardinal Mahoney does nothing but cover up, cover up, protect protect....and NOTHING from the laity. Nothing from the Catholic League. Nothing from the Knights of Columbus.

here's some shocking news for you; the catholic league and the knights of columbus represent a very small percentage of the catholic laity.

Of course...that excuses their silence on the matter. Thank you for clearing that up, del.

it no more excuses them than it justifies your bullshit that the entire catholic laity embraces pedophilia.

but you keep telling yourself it does if that's what works for you.

hypocrite

 

[del]

Now go buy a ******* dictionary from 1975.........

Up until tyrannical progressives started redefining words "marriage" has been DEFINED as a union between a man and a woman.

You ******* evildoers have a hobby of redefining words....

Hell you ***** have the audacity to call yourselves "liberal." I will never refer to one of you commie bastards as "liberal."

As a matter of fact if you were so ******* liberal you would be thinking why is government involved in "marriage" in the first place (like I am).

you're giving doorknobs a bad name, nicky.

Are you saying words aren't being redefined??

I don't even understand how a word can even be redefined....

Words have an original definition (or are homonyms) and anything outside of that is slang...

here's a word and a definition for you, nicky.

idiot=you

carry on

 

[Peach]

the laity didn't excuse it and does not excuse it.

pull your head out of your ass, bigot.

The desire to see all Americans with equal standing under the law is NOT bigotry. It is the vision set forth in the Constitution.

try to keep UP, otay?

Otay? Okey Dokey. The Church has been perceived by some as not doing enough; in perspective however, compare the number of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church worldwide. No more or less than most other groups of that size.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Name a law that SCOTUS ever wrote.

You're the one that claimed the SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage" or at least justified it.

How the **** can they do that considering marriage isn't part of the Bill of Rights or the other 17 amendments???

I did? When did I say that SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage"? Show my post that said that.

You claimed "loving vs Virginia" did you not???

You're basically asserting that gays are a race hence justification and that case has been used several times as "justification."

 

[Mr.Nick]

you're giving doorknobs a bad name, nicky.

Are you saying words aren't being redefined??

I don't even understand how a word can even be redefined....

Words have an original definition (or are homonyms) and anything outside of that is slang...

here's a word and a definition for you, nicky.

idiot=you

carry on

Go listen to your Michal Medved and put me on your ignore list.....

 

[del]

Are you saying words aren't being redefined??

I don't even understand how a word can even be redefined....

Words have an original definition (or are homonyms) and anything outside of that is slang...

here's a word and a definition for you, nicky.

idiot=you

carry on

Go listen to your Michal Medved and put me on your ignore list.....

 

[bodecea]

Name a law that SCOTUS ever wrote.

You're the one that claimed the SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage" or at least justified it.

How the **** can they do that considering marriage isn't part of the Bill of Rights or the other 17 amendments???

I did? When did I say that SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage"? Show my post that said that.

BTW...would like to point out to our ... ahem...Constitutional Expert that ELIMINATING a bad law is NOT the same as creating a new law.

Ok?

 

[bodecea]

You're the one that claimed the SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage" or at least justified it.

How the **** can they do that considering marriage isn't part of the Bill of Rights or the other 17 amendments???

I did? When did I say that SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage"? Show my post that said that.

You claimed "loving vs Virginia" did you not???

You're basically asserting that gays are a race hence justification and that case has been used several times as "justification."

Loving v Virginia stated that Marriage is a fundamental right. You have a problem with that obviously. Explain why you think that people should not have the right to marry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are being denied equal treatment under the law.

And spare me the "they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else" nonsense.

No they are not... Or two Sisters are who Care for a Child.

Fact not Fiction.

Marriage isn't whatever anyone says it is, otherwise it's a Wide Open Door.



peace...

Correct.

Marriage exists exactly as defined by a state’s marriage law; law both same and opposite-sex couples have a right to access. The exact, same law for everyone, regardless race, gender, or sexual orientation.

 

[bodecea]

The desire to see all Americans with equal standing under the law is NOT bigotry. It is the vision set forth in the Constitution.

try to keep UP, otay?

Otay? Okey Dokey. The Church has been perceived by some as not doing enough; in perspective however, compare the number of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church worldwide. No more or less than most other groups of that size.

It's the covering up....it's the moving them around for YEARS with no heads up to the new parish. That is DISGUSTING! Let me say it again....DISGUSTING!

 

[SniperFire]

They are being denied equal treatment under the law.

And spare me the "they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else" nonsense.

No they are not... Or two Sisters are who Care for a Child.

Fact not Fiction.

Marriage isn't whatever anyone says it is, otherwise it's a Wide Open Door.



peace...

Correct.

Marriage exists exactly as defined by a state’s marriage law.

Marriage existed before States existed, you stupid ass.

 

[del]

try to keep UP, otay?

Otay? Okey Dokey. The Church has been perceived by some as not doing enough; in perspective however, compare the number of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church worldwide. No more or less than most other groups of that size.

It's the covering up....it's the moving them around for YEARS with no heads up to the new parish. That is DISGUSTING! Let me say it again....DISGUSTING!

and that had nothing to do with the catholic laity, hypocrite.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I did? When did I say that SCOTUS "legalized gay marriage"? Show my post that said that.

You claimed "loving vs Virginia" did you not???

You're basically asserting that gays are a race hence justification and that case has been used several times as "justification."

Loving v Virginia stated that Marriage is a fundamental right. You have a problem with that obviously. Explain why you think that people should not have the right to marry.

They can have "civil unions" all they want but "marriage" is religious in nature...

Honestly I could care less what gays do - there is nothing stopping them from consortium so what the **** is their problem???

There is nothing that states a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't engage in civil contract...

Besides, Loving v Virginia was about race not sexuality.

The only reason why "Jim Crow laws" even existed is because there was nothing in the Constitution that precisely forbid them... But that is an entirely different debate (if it matters I believe the Bill of Rights within itself made Jim Crow laws illegal in the first place).

 

[del]

You claimed "loving vs Virginia" did you not???

You're basically asserting that gays are a race hence justification and that case has been used several times as "justification."

Loving v Virginia stated that Marriage is a fundamental right. You have a problem with that obviously. Explain why you think that people should not have the right to marry.

They can have "civil unions" all they want but "marriage" is religious in nature...

Honestly I could care less what gays do - there is nothing stopping them from consortium so what the **** is their problem???

There is nothing that states a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't engage in civil contract...

Besides, Loving v Virginia was about race not sexuality.

nigga, please

 

[Mr.Nick]

No they are not... Or two Sisters are who Care for a Child.

Fact not Fiction.

Marriage isn't whatever anyone says it is, otherwise it's a Wide Open Door.



peace...

Correct.

Marriage exists exactly as defined by a state’s marriage law.

Marriage existed before States existed, you stupid ass.

"Marriage" is at least 3500 years old (probably longer)...

Of course we're only talking about a word here, obviously monogamy is as old as humanity.

 

[bodecea]

Otay? Okey Dokey. The Church has been perceived by some as not doing enough; in perspective however, compare the number of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church worldwide. No more or less than most other groups of that size.

It's the covering up....it's the moving them around for YEARS with no heads up to the new parish. That is DISGUSTING! Let me say it again....DISGUSTING!

and that had nothing to do with the catholic laity, hypocrite.

Not hearing that much in the way of demands that the Catholic Church clean its act up...are you? Mostly those complaining are the victims, their families, and civil authorities.

 

[bodecea]

You claimed "loving vs Virginia" did you not???

You're basically asserting that gays are a race hence justification and that case has been used several times as "justification."

Loving v Virginia stated that Marriage is a fundamental right. You have a problem with that obviously. Explain why you think that people should not have the right to marry.

They can have "civil unions" all they want but "marriage" is religious in nature...

Honestly I could care less what gays do - there is nothing stopping them from consortium so what the **** is their problem???

There is nothing that states a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't engage in civil contract...

Besides, Loving v Virginia was about race not sexuality.

The only reason why "Jim Crow laws" even existed is because there was nothing in the Constitution that precisely forbid them... But that is an entirely different debate (if it matters I believe the Bill of Rights within itself made Jim Crow laws illegal in the first place).

So those who are married by a Justice of the Peace are not really married to you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Loving v Virginia stated that Marriage is a fundamental right. You have a problem with that obviously. Explain why you think that people should not have the right to marry.

They can have "civil unions" all they want but "marriage" is religious in nature...

Honestly I could care less what gays do - there is nothing stopping them from consortium so what the **** is their problem???

There is nothing that states a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't engage in civil contract...

Besides, Loving v Virginia was about race not sexuality.

nigga, please

I have a problem with the terminology being used - not with the action..

I don't give a **** what anyone does just as long as it doesn't effect me.

I just believe the word "marriage" is used too loosely....

As a Catholic I take offense to homosexuals using a word that traditionally describes the union between a man and a woman.

A man and a woman is different from a man and a man or a woman and a woman... It doesn't take a ******* rocket scientist to see that...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Loving v Virginia stated that Marriage is a fundamental right. You have a problem with that obviously. Explain why you think that people should not have the right to marry.

They can have "civil unions" all they want but "marriage" is religious in nature...

Honestly I could care less what gays do - there is nothing stopping them from consortium so what the **** is their problem???

There is nothing that states a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't engage in civil contract...

Besides, Loving v Virginia was about race not sexuality.

The only reason why "Jim Crow laws" even existed is because there was nothing in the Constitution that precisely forbid them... But that is an entirely different debate (if it matters I believe the Bill of Rights within itself made Jim Crow laws illegal in the first place).

So those who are married by a Justice of the Peace are not really married to you.

Absolutely NOT - that is called a consortium, or civil union....

They're contractually bound in the eyes of the government, not in the eyes of God.

Like I have said previously - marriage is used extremely loosely these days.

 

[del]

It's the covering up....it's the moving them around for YEARS with no heads up to the new parish. That is DISGUSTING! Let me say it again....DISGUSTING!

and that had nothing to do with the catholic laity, hypocrite.

Not hearing that much in the way of demands that the Catholic Church clean its act up...are you? Mostly those complaining are the victims, their families, and civil authorities.

i guess you hear what you want, hypocrite.